Kyu says, "The boy is asking for tangible evidence that cannot be provided." That's not what happened. The "boy" asked for some LOGIC that the Christian could not provide.

Now I'd like to hear about "Christian logic" and how it is different.

No, I think its entirely the point.

Its the point you got to understand you're clearly failing, HARD, at doing so right now.

I dont think you want to hear anything to be honest besides a capitulation and good examples of superior material than I'd furnish have been provided already but, hey, go with your sixth graders, they're at about your level.

Its the point you got to understand you're clearly failing, HARD, at doing so right now.

I dont think you want to hear anything to be honest besides a capitulation and good examples of superior material than I'd furnish have been provided already but, hey, go with your sixth graders, they're at about your level.

Yet I asked you about Christian logic. Are you a 6th grader?

"Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
“Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

A lack of evidence for a thing's existence does disprove that thing's existence when that thing is defined in such a way that, if it existed, there would necessarily be a certain piece of evidence for its existence where, in fact, there is no such evidence. E.g. if I were to say that there exists a pink dragon that it's impossible for you not to see, and in fact, you don't see any such pink dragon, the pink dragon's existence has been disproved.

A thing's existence is also disproved if it is defined in such a way that it inherently refers to nothing; i.e. in such a way that it can have no referent.

Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.Robot Fusion
"As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
"[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
"[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

A lack of evidence for a thing's existence does disprove that thing's existence when that thing is defined in such a way that, if it existed, there would necessarily be a certain piece of evidence for its existence where, in fact, there is no such evidence. E.g. if I were to say that there exists a pink dragon that it's impossible for you not to see, and in fact, you don't see any such pink dragon, the pink dragon's existence has been disproved.

A thing's existence is also disproved if it is defined in such a way that it inherently refers to nothing; i.e. in such a way that it can have no referent.

Do you see a difference between necessary evidence and possible evidence? Do you have any criteria for determining what is necessary and what is possible evidence?

"Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the mouth." Mike Tyson
“Culture?” says Paul McCartney. “This isn't culture. It's just a good laugh.”

No need to put yourself down. I am confident your didactic skills are up to the task.

In any case, you could give an answer for the benefit of the whole forum. You see, I am not the only one intrigued by the originality of your thought. Nor am I the only one interested in a dissection of Coyne's views.

If you had written this, I would have agreed with it. That summarizes my own views rather closely. I have devoted my education and now my career to science, and do not take kindly to statements that appear to trivialize it, and do attempt to correct misunderstandings regarding it.

This is exactly what I DID write from the very beginning. But the whole thread got out of hand because ...

Originally Posted by Mal+

Kyu says, "The boy is asking for tangible evidence that cannot be provided." That's not what happened. The "boy" asked for some LOGIC that the Christian could not provide.

Now I'd like to hear about "Christian logic" and how it is different.

... The semantics are still being argued over. You literally just said you agree with my viewpoint, but this is the viewpoint I started out with when I started this damn debate.

And somehow, it turned into whether or not I agree/respect/whatever science. That's not what I was trying to debate about at all. I really, honestly, do like to stick to the OPs of threads for the most part. And yet, people kept picking apart my wording and magically we got to a point where my point was entirely lost in the entire thread.

I made it. And I made it again. And now, somehow, it is not only my fault for writing books trying to explain how my words tie back into my point, but someone is NOW telling me "Well why didn't you just say that?!" I DID.

Kantgirl: Just say "I'm feminine and I'll punch anyone who says otherwise!"
Halla74: Think your way through the world. Feel your way through life.